From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BYCIf-00028V-4K
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:16:05 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BYCId-00028J-Lg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:16:04 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BYCId-00028G-IV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:16:03 -0400
Received: from [193.252.22.26] (helo=mwinf0501.wanadoo.fr)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BYCHs-0004nS-GC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:15:16 -0400
Received: from bellard.org (ATuileries-112-1-3-149.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr
	[81.48.134.149])
	by mwinf0501.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B951640019E
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:15:15 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <40C79A98.10105@bellard.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:17:44 +0200
From: Fabrice Bellard <fabrice@bellard.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: NE2000 problem found
References: <000b01c44e6c$dcdef410$0401a8c0@putte2k>
In-Reply-To: <000b01c44e6c$dcdef410$0401a8c0@putte2k>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Mike Nordell wrote:
> Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> 
> 
>>Can you tell me exactly in which case you have problems with NE2000 ?
> 
> 
> Always? :-)
> 
> On Windows 2000, running Windows 2000 sp4, -pci -cirrusvga.
> 
> It's also the thing that it seems only about every second time networking
> "works", to the extent the guest actually gets a DHCP address. It seems the
> slirp code is indeed getting the request, and is offering an addr, but the
> response is not reaching the guest OS' IP-stack. Whether this is due to the
> guests driver not even getting the interrupt from the virtual NIC, the
> response frame is malformed or <whatever> I haven't yet been able to
> determine. I'm still in the process of adding better tracing, to be able to
> see what happens when.
> 
> After adding the asic writeb I have observed it being written with 0x43
> (just a few times) and 0xff (more times), and only directly after "read
> addr=0x7 val=40". I haven't yet added tracing output of rcnt for writeb, and
> I don't know the significance of this, but I suspect it means something.

Interesting. This problem may really be liked to the WinXP security 
problem I mentionned.

Fabrice.